Naval Weapon Systems & Technology

AK-630-M2 dual Gatling guns CIWS

Is it me or did you only post text?

I see the vids, so perhaps it is you.

You aren't tuning in from behind a firewall that blocks content are you?

(Nice vids BTW coolieno99 )

Dunno, but I can see the videos fine now. Nice vids too.

Some scribbling done by me when I was 10 years younger

Modern Torpedoes And Countermeasures

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE3-4/joseph.html

Nice, though I would add that in addition to decoys and depth charges the RBU-1000 can also launch proximity mines in the path of incoming threats.

The system can also be used against divers as well.

I remember reading based on the systems fitted to new ships that the RBU-1000 has been largely supersceded by the PAKET which is basically a torpedo that homes in and destroys incoming torpedoes... a sort of anti torpedo torpedo... Individually more expensive but more capable... a bit like comparing 23mm cannon shells from a ZU-23 with an Igla SAM... the 23mm cannon shells can be used against a range of targets including ground targets but overall the SAM is more effective over a wider range in its primary role and so works out cheaper and easier to use.

Garry we dont know the name of the system but radar is from Phazotron and EO is Sphere-02 gyrostabilized optic-electronic observation device

http://www.eng.npo-karat.ru/catalog/11-5/

Clearly separate products mounted together so they can both benefit from good fields of view up high somewhere.

Makes sense.

I would expect that in an air defence setup the EO ball would be used to ID targets detected with a radar as it would not be good for search functions.
(ie it would take too long to give a 360 degree scan of the airspace around the ship so a threat could close in and hit the ship without the ball ever looking in the right direction in time... It would make rather more sense to use radar to detect targets and then use this optics ball to have a closer look in TV or IR to ID the target... and AESA with 4 antenna covering 360 degrees could scan in every direction around the ship in less than half a second if you want to... anything it detects of interest the EO ball can be directed to have a closer look.)

It is clear, that Sphere-02 have enough windows for day TV, thermal imager, laser range finder, IR missile locator and laser missile guidance system. In combination with AESA radars, this FCS complex could actually work with different type of air defense missiles, like radar guided missiles (ARH, SARH), IR guided, radio guided (radar could send radio guiding signals), laser guided missiles and at the end also CIWS guns. It all depends on the programmed parameters in its computers.

As it use naval Sphere-02 EO ball and is shown in naval exhibition, this could be a ship based system placed on a place of search radar for Kashtan CIWS. But this doesn't mean, this complex could not be used in land based air defense. It could excellently work with SHORADs like Morfei, Pantsir, Tor-M2 or older as well as AA guns like Sosna with Sosna-R missiles or maybe Shilka in closed loop and could make them effective C-RAM system.

Indeed the fact that it is not type specific suggests it has more potential rather than less.

Following reductions and limitations of systems to reduce the types in service there might be a bit of a fight to narrow down the types of systems used to make it easier to manage and operate.

The positioning high up in the mast however suggests to me that it might be more intended as an independent surveillance device that is quite widely deployed on relatively small boats and up to larger vessels too.

The combination of IR and radar would be more expensive than just radar alone but the combination of capabilities makes it far more potent than when used alone or separately.

I personally more think this complex will be both in one, air space surveillance and targets engagement as FCS system for air defense unit on ship or on ground. If it is only for surveillance, than EO ball doesn't need so many windows and could use cheaper ball with only TV and TI in it. AESA radar for sure could do both air space surveillance and target tracking with missile guidance. Also EO ball could do visual ID as well as tracking target and missile guidance in passive mode or in heavy jamming. That way could reduce number of radars on the ship and consumption of energy, what could make ships cheaper and same or more effective as they are now.

This complex on the photo is seen relatively small and could be placed on ship mast or on truck or tracked vehicle in the place of turret for land version. We will see in what direction development will go.

Watching some of the videos of its use on the page Austin posted it seems most likely to be mounted on the mast of a ship and would be used in lieu of a pair of binoculars on the deck of the ship.

The high magnification plus night and all weather capability would make it much better than binoculars on a ships deck especially if fully stabilised and well above sea spray height, with the added bonus of laser range finding capability.

Just looking at the number of optics windows I would assume that the two large windows will be the Thermal and Digital optics cameras, while the remaining four optical ports are less obvious.

The yellow sticker warning of laser radiation and the videos showing range to locked targets clearly suggest a laser range finder. This requires two optical ports, one to send the laser beam and one to detect the returning beam.

The remaining two optical ports could be II and colour lower magnification ports, or they could include a laser beam for guiding laser beam riding missiles.

It is perfectly possible that if it has laser ports incorporated into it that it could be used as an independent targeting system, so that for instance on a small patrol craft with a new 57mm automatic cannon that has an integrated optics system for lasing targets, if multiple targets appear the guns ability to fire several hundreds of shells per minute would not be matched by its laser systems ability to lase multiple targets at once so improved performance could be gained by perhaps facing the optics for the gun to one side of the ship to engage a threat and the mast mounted system at targets on the other side of the ship and have the gun fire a burst to each side to enable multiple targets to be engaged at once without needing radar emissions.

You could probably have 2-4 of these optics turrets around the masts of the ship displaying their information on large screen displays on the bridge to give much better situational awareness for the captain... no more sneaking up on a ship even in harbour in a speed boat loaded with explosives...

Paket ASW system is RPK-9 Medvedka?

George1 wrote:Paket ASW system is RPK-9 Medvedka?

No George , it is practically the unique hard kill anti-torpedo defence system now operative worldwide, naturally it mantain also a close range anti-submarine/saboteur capability

The Russian navy is far ahead of the Russian Army and Air Force.

Austin... perhaps you should learn a bit about the Sigma system?

1 - Commander's automated workstation (ARM)
1a - Helmsman's workstation
1b - Watch officer's ARM
2 - Navigator's ARM
3 - Database unit
4 - BCh-7 commander's ARM
5 - AD chief's ARM
6 - Data exchange unit
7 - ASW/radio awereness operator's ARM
8 - BCh-7 plotter ARM
9 - Close air and surface control unit
11 - Aircraft combat control operator's ARM
12 - System control operator's ARM
13 - Radar link unit
14 - Electrical system units

To explain what is BCh-7: In the Russian Navy, an individual ship's TO&E is divided into Battle Stations (BCh) and Battle Services (Sl). Each BCh and Sl can also be divided into divisions, groups, sections, watches and so on.

Battle Stations:

BCh-1: navigation
BCh-2: missile-artillery
BCh-3: mine-torpedo
BCh-4: communications
BCh-5: propulsion
BCh-6: aviation
BCh-7: radar control

Battle Services:

Sl-H: NBC protection
Sl-M: medical
Sl-S: supply

*******************************************************************************
Every ship will get this system from carrier down to Corvette.
Even the Buyan gunboat for the Caspian Sea Flotilla has Sigma... though it is the Domestic version rather than the export system.

It is a battle management and communications system that combines data from multiple sources to form an air/sea/underwater picture of the space around the various vessels.

This means a Corvette fitted with Redut could launch a 400km range SAM at a target it has no chance of detecting itself, but can receieve data about the target from a platform located closer to the target to allow the interception to take place.

GarryB wrote:Austin... perhaps you should learn a bit about the Sigma system?

I am aware of it for a long time , I believe a variant of it will be on our Groshkov carrier Vikramaditya

Seems this is the future CIWS for Russian Navy

http://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/6231/

Just had a discussion on how SS-N-16 works , it seems that when the SS-N-16 Veter is fired and reaches its destination , the torpedo is dropped down and then it enters the water and does a spiral movement downward.

The spiral movement is to ensure a 360 degree search as it moves down with its sensors and once a target is found , it torpedo moves in the direction of target.

The sensors used is a combination of Passive and Active search sonar and it also has wake homers sensors, so all three sensors are on the torpedo.

If the torpedo misses the target , its does a rerun at the target.

If true its quite impressive.

Austin wrote:Just had a discussion on how SS-N-16 works , it seems that when the SS-N-16 Veter is fired and reaches its destination , the torpedo is dropped down and then it enters the water and does a spiral movement downward.

The spiral movement is to ensure a 360 degree search as it moves down with its sensors and once a target is found , it torpedo moves in the direction of target.

The sensors used is a combination of Passive and Active search sonar and it also has wake homers sensors, so all three sensors are on the torpedo.

If the torpedo misses the target , its does a rerun at the target.

If true its quite impressive.

Yes Austin this is an explicative image from the maker.





The type of guidance and target acquisition is not too different from that of 91RE1 of Klub missile family

Yes ,it is a truly impressive weapon that ,like the 91RE1 ,has stil today no corresponding abroad and opening virtually countless tactical solutions and capabilities ,simply out of reach for any enemy devoid of a similar system.
The only real defect of the RPK-6/7 torpedo ,at least its older version, is a reduced probability to hit in very shallow waters ,but this is a problem common for almost all air delivered light torpedo.

This is a video of a salvo launch of two RPK-7

The sensors used is a combination of Passive and Active search sonar and it also has wake homers sensors, so all three sensors are on the torpedo.

To be able to operate in active search mode, it already has the components necessary to act passively.

You have two ears. Together you can use them to find the sources of sound... A telephone rings in a messy bedroom you use a combination of the direction the sound is coming from in relation to your two ears and you physically move to make the sound appear louder... as long as it keeps on ringing you will eventually locate it.

The torpedo has active sonar homing, which means it has a mechanism to make a noise and a mechanism to detect the reflection of that noise and its precise direction. To use it in passive mode is simply to have it listen for noises and not ping itself... if it hears something it analyses the signal to see if it is a target or a whale, or something natural. If it is identified as a target using a library of target signatures, then it starts up its motor and heads towards the noise.

If it doesn't it might ping to see what is there.... if it detects a large object it accelerates and attacks.

Yes ,it is a truly impressive weapon that ,like the 91RE1 ,has stil today no corresponding abroad and opening virtually countless tactical solutions and capabilities ,simply out of reach for any enemy devoid of a similar system.

Not strictly true. The US had the Subroc and the ship launched equivalent Asroc, and they were planning its replacement called Sea Lance, but the quietening technology of Soviet and then Russian subs made it pointless without a nuke warhead, so it was cancelled.

The US had the Subroc and the ship launched equivalent Asroc,

GarryB SUBROC and ASROC aren't in any way weapons equivalent to RPK-6/7 series neither to 91R series of ASW missiles.


ASROC/SUBROC series were unguided ,subsonic, rocket propelled systems armed at maximum with very light torpedo (only in the surface version) uncapable of any type of area search/engagement function and with range of 15,8 Km in the '70 years version and 22 Km in the 1993 RUM-139 Vertical Launch version; the submarine version -UUM-44-,as well specified by Norman Friedman, was even worse at the point that ,for its complete lack of any capability of point engagement and its very low reliability its only possible employment would have been area saturating attacks using nuclear warheads .

Even only the antediluvian end of '60 years Метель -SS-N-14- was vastly superior to ASROC in practically any cardinal parameter ,but also here even attampt to talk of a comparable system would be completely wrong.
The Метель was a far more complex and efficient system , capable to point engage both submarines following a 400 m cruise altitude, at over 55 Km of distance (three times and half the engagement range of the ASROC operative in the same years..) with terminal area serch function and surface targets following a sea-skinning profile at 15 m of altitude


http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/rastrub/rastrub.shtml

and they were planning its replacement called Sea Lance, but the quietening technology of Soviet and then Russian subs made it pointless without a nuke warhead, so it was cancelled

Also the failed UUM-125 Sea Lance project,if ever realized,in '90 years would have been vastly inferior ,in any cardinal parameter ,against the end of '70 years RPK-7


Reality is ,obviously, much simpler : Exist miltary-scientific sectors wherein URSS/Russia was/is vastly head of Western nations (and similar products into examination pertain just to one of those sectors) and others (such as data processing systems or UAV technology) where is true the opposite ; in those sectors the gap is so wide that attempt to find exact corrispectives on a side or the other conduct to Kafkaesque assuptions .

I knew they were inferior...

But they are also supersonic ballistic rockets that deliver a torpedo to a distant target.

There is also the Australian Ikara, which was similar to SS-N-14, though inferior in range and with no anti ship secondary capability (ie radar and IR guidance for anti ship use).

While the concept of SS-N-16 is sound for stand of target engagement , its probably high time they develop a Son of SS-N-16 using the modern electronics/solid fuel and propulsion plus most importantly newer Torpedoes like Fizik-2.

Since it seems like 533 mm TT will be the standard and 650 mm will fade away , it would make sense to move to modern variant of SS-N-16.

We really know so less on what is going on Torpedo front these days.